Bee v. Thomas Ovens & Sons [1900] ScotLR 37_328 (25 January 1900)

Bee v. Thomas Ovens & Sons [1900] ScotLR 37_328 (25 January 1900)

Carting work performed by the respondent was not merely ancillary or incidental but was part of the business carried on by the appellants. Therefore, under section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897, the appellants as undertakers are liable to pay compensation to the respondent, even though he was employed by a contractor and not directly by the appellants.

Citation
[1900] ScotLR 37_328
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Robert Bee; Appellant: Thomas Ovens & Sons
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
25 January 1900
Procedural Posture
Appeal on Case Stated (arbitration Under Workmen's Compensation Act 1897) / Inner House, Second Division, Court of Session
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; award of compensation affirmed.
Legal Topics
Workmen's Compensation, Employer's Liability, Factory Law, Contractor Liability
Labour Law Tort Law Workmen's Compensation Employer's Liability Factory Law Contractor Liability

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Bee

Claimant/respondent

Thomas Ovens & Sons

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal on Case Stated (arbitration Under Workmen's Compensation Act 1897) / Inner House, Second Division, Court of Session

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the occupier of a factory is liable under section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897 to pay compensation to an employee of a carting contractor injured in the factory, where the work is not merely ancillary or incidental but part of the business.
  2. 2 Whether the exception in section 4 (work merely ancillary or incidental) applies to the carting work in question.

Ratio Decidendi

Carting work performed by the respondent was not merely ancillary or incidental but was part of the business carried on by the appellants. Therefore, under section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897, the appellants as undertakers are liable to pay compensation to the respondent, even though he was employed by a contractor and not directly by the appellants.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; award of compensation affirmed.

Orders

  • Affirmed the award of the arbitrator.
  • Respondent entitled to expenses.